Reader’s Comments to My Article “Concealed Carry @ Work: Holster the Hassle” & My Response

Thanks to Glenn Rawski, S.P.H.R., of Practical H.R. Support Services Ltd. for his comments below.  My response follows Glenn’s remarks, & Glenn’s reply (to my response) follows that.  In any instance, I stick by my original remarks—I.E., as a general rule, keep guns out of the workplace).

Charles:

 I feel your last post contained some information that might be incorrect or misleading. In your post “Concealed Carry @ Work: Holster the Hassle” you indicate that businesses have the option to not permit weapons on the premise. I believe this statement is incorrect. In Illinois an employee is only obligated to follow the safe trunk rules. An employer cannot take away that right.

Also, you mention increased insurance costs. If you check with insurance companies, I believe you will find that employer rates may increase if they do not allow concealed carry. If a company takes away the right of an individual to carry a legally possessed weapon (this is allowed) within their place of employment, wouldn’t a reasonable person argue that the company then bears the responsibility to protect their employees and failure to do so would justify a significant settlement? A company can ban concealed carry for employees and not allow vendors to carry via threat of not doing business with them but a company cannot ban concealed carry for all people unless the owner of the building has designated the entire building as no concealed carry.

I know this is a tough issue for employers. I recommend to my clients that they allow concealed carry for employees who have a valid current Illinois CC license. I further suggest that the weapon must be completely concealed rather than “mostly” concealed as stated in the Illinois Law. Employers should further require that CCL holders notify the company of their status and provide a copy of the valid CCL.

You mention OSHA in your post. OSHA encourages companies (and companies train employees) to make employees responsible for their own safety. Not allowing concealed carry does the opposite. I cannot recall a workplace shooting that was committed by a person with a CCL. If the choice is to not allow concealed carry and risk a massacre or allow concealed carry and risk a shooting. My preference would be to allow concealed carry.

People in Illinois seem to be either for or against CCL with no middle ground. Have a great week.

Glenn
Glenn J. Rawski, S.P.H.R.
Practical H.R. Support Services Ltd.
Schiller Park, Illinois 60176
Office: (847) 233 – 0002
Fax: (847) 233 – 0003
Cell (224) 406 – 4800
E-Mail: Glenn.Rawski@PracticalHR.org
Website:  www.PracticalHR.org

Hi Glenn,

Regarding, the safe trunk rules, my reading of the statute is that an employer can ban the “carrying” of guns on any of their property.  Here’s the main part of the statute:  (a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.

Assuming I’m reading the statute correctly, it’s the very next subsection, (b), that discusses safe trunk rules.  However, I believe that this means that an employer can still post the sticker; they just don’t have the authority to outright ban the possession in that vehicle.  If an employer owns or rents their parking lot, they can post the stickers prohibiting firearms & add that much more protection to their workplace & possibly save money on insurance & related costs (e.g., training, remediation).

There are so many other exceptions to the safe trunk rule that it’s simpler to advise employers not to permit concealed carry, as a practical & simple rule, than to try to figure out if permitting it is worth the risks.  For example, you’re concealed carry can’t be too close to certain parking lots, schools, hospitals, public transportation, government buildings, etc.

Also, based on statutory construction alone (the way that the statute is laid out), the fact that the exceptions come before the actual rule implies that IL legislators didn’t want to appear to put a liberal weapons policy ahead of safety concerns & peoples’ lives.  It’s the same logic I’m advising employers to follow.

Relative to the insurance issue, I don’t see how permitting concealed carry at the workplace equates with increased safety & thus decreased insurance costs.  Also, I’ve seen no practical empirical research to support this idea.  None of this negates the impact of the negligent handling of firearms by employees, & the cost to employers for such negligence.  This segues into OSHA.

Regarding OSHA, here’s OSHA’s mission:  “You have the right to a safe workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was passed to prevent workers from being killed or seriously harmed at work. The law requires employers to provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers.” How does permitting concealed carry at work fulfill this mission & keep employers out of trouble?

I appreciate the concept of ensuring individual rights & safety, but I don’t see how an employer policy of permitting concealed carry fosters that while keeping expenses low.

If I wasn’t clear in my original post, it’s a cost vs. benefit analysis (I’ll update my post to reflect this).

Glenn later added the following: